4 ms·
His point of view, that he's stated on the Lex Friedman podcast, is that AGI is potentially dangerous and inevitable, but safer to develop as soon as possible a
by NumberWangMan 3y ago
His point of view, that he's stated on the Lex Friedman podcast, is that AGI is potentially dangerous and inevitable, but safer to develop as soon as possible and try to make it safe by studying real-world models empirically, rather than waiting until computing power is much greater and risking a "fast takeoff".
I don't know that I agree with this strategy, but I can respect that it's a consistent viewpoint.
So what I hear from him is "Yes, this is dangerous stuff, and we're trying our hardest to make it safe, but we can't control everyone, so we need regulation ASAP because market forces are going to push everyone to race and release unsafe AIs".
- njarboe 3y agoSeems like a reasonable point of view from Sam. Better to have some kind of AGI catastrophe when some kind of Butlerian Jihad is still possible.
- JohnFen 3y agoYes, I know his point of view, but it doesn't really help answer the question. > I can respect that it's a consistent viewpoint. I don't think I agree that there's a great deal of consistency between that stated perspective and what OpenAI is actually doing. It's also, conveniently, a point of view that allows him to keep doing what he wants to do, and making bank by doing it. Understand, I'm not saying he's a bad actor. I'm saying that it's hard to rule that out. From his WorldCoin stuff to this, there is plenty of reason to be suspicious of his motives.